Agribusiness knows that their practices are out of
step with most American's values, so they're desperately scrambling to
conceal factory farming cruelties from public view with these bills.
Obviously, rather than blinding consumers to what they're doing, it would
make a lot more sense for the industry to be proactive about improving
conditions for animals. Instead, they're resorting to censorship because
it's essentially cheaper and easier than improving animal welfare.

Three state legislatures (Florida, Iowa and Minnesota) have introduced bills
to criminalize taking photos and videos of animals being mistreated on
factory farms—while doing absolutely nothing to stop the widespread animal
abuse that these undercover investigators document.

Runkle grew up on a farm in rural Ohio, and founded MFA there as a high
school student in 1999 in response to a local pig farm cruelty case he got
involved in. He has led teams of undercover MFA investigators in exposing
animal cruelty at factory farms and other agriculture operations, including
the state's four largest egg producers. In the course of his investigative
work, Runkle has also rescued and helped rehabilitate dozens of abused and
neglected farm animals. In addition, he coordinates MFA's outreach, advocacy
and media campaigns, and is a nationally-recognized speaker on farm animal
advocacy who has given hundreds of interviews to major newspapers, radio
shows and television programs.

Anyway, here's Runkle's take on the proposed bans of undercover factory
farming investigations:

AnimalRighter: Why do you think agribusiness and some politicians are
pushing so hard to pass these bills?

Nathan: Because undercover investigations have been so effective at exposing
the inhumane treatment of animals inside factory farms and slaughterhouses.
They have led to civil and criminal animal cruelty convictions against
employees and companies, major corporate policy changes, and passage of
landmark legislation banning veal and gestation crates, battery cages, and
some forms of painful mutilation. They've also elevated the level of
awareness and discussion among consumers about the plight of farm animals.

Agribusiness knows that their practices are out of step with most American's
values, so they're desperately scrambling to conceal factory farming
cruelties from public view with these bills. Obviously, rather than blinding
consumers to what they're doing, it would make a lot more sense for the
industry to be proactive about improving conditions for animals. Instead,
they're resorting to censorship because it's essentially cheaper and easier
than improving animal welfare.

One of the most common claims made in defense of these bills is that
investigators “selectively edit” them to make it seem like there's more
cruelty going on than there actually is. Some people even accuse
investigators of “staging” the acts of animal cruelty they capture on video.
Personally, I don’t see how that’s possible, especially given that the
footage basically depicts other employees abusing animals.

We get many hours of footage from each investigation, which we then have to
edit down to hold viewers' attention. People are used to watching short
YouTube videos that are a few minutes long, and that's generally the amount
of time we have to present the evidence. Plus the footage is so shocking and
painful to watch that most people can only take it in small doses.

Whether it's raw footage or the YouTube version, however, our undercover
videos accurately depict what actually happens to animals on factory
farms—and law enforcement officials can testify to that. That is, whenever
we document what we believe are violations of animal cruelty laws during our
investigations, we hand over all of our unedited footage to law enforcement,
who then review it for applicable violations. We have a history of
successfully criminally and civilly charging companies and individuals for
animal cruelty based on our undercover videos. So, if the footage is so
strong that law enforcement is willing to take action, and it's used as
evidence in a court of law to convict factory farmers of animal cruelty,
then of course our videos are true-to-life representations of the abuse
being perpetrated in these facilities.

State Representative Annette Sweeney, who introduced the bill in the Iowa
House, is a cattle rancher, and she's just been spewing outright lies to the
media about how undercover footage is staged by animal activists. MFA has
directly contacted Sweeney's office asking for any proof or evidence of a
single instance in which undercover farm investigation footage has been
staged. They've refused to respond, so I think it's safe to assume she
doesn't actually have any facts to support her accusation.

So why then do some people insist that investigators manipulate video
footage for their own ends?

I think they're habitual liars who know that the public will not, under any
circumstances, find animal abuse acceptable. They therefore have to claim
that we've staged acts of animal cruelty. What it boils down to is that
we've caught them red-handed—literally, with blood on their hands—and they
cannot defend what's going on, so they're trying to shoot the messenger.
What they really need to do is look at these investigations, admit that they
have real problems, and address the endemic cruelty taking place in their
facilities. Instead, the industry is showing how little regard they have for
animal welfare and public opinion, and that they are willing to tell
outrageous lies to maintain the status quo and their profit margin.

These bills seem to especially emphasize how tight the relationship is
between agribusiness and some politicians. What are your impressions?

Iowa is the largest egg producing state in the nation and one of the largest
pork-producing states. Agribusiness therefore has tremendous economic pull,
which translates into political power in the legislature. The organizations
lobbying in support of this bill, companies like Monsanto, for instance
(along with all the major meat, dairy and egg production companies and trade
organizations), have a lot of money and financial clout. However, we hope
that legislators will have the backbone to stand up to these special
interests by rejecting these bills.

We also hope lawmakers realize that, aside from preventing the documentation
of animal abuse, these bills would essentially shield farming operations
from public scrutiny in terms of environmental regulations, workers' rights
violations, tax fraud—a whole host of issues. If employees witness any type
of laws being broken, they would be legally prevented from documenting them,
which makes it much more difficult for regulators to hold these companies
accountable. Take the Hallmark/Westland case in California, for example,
which resulted in the largest beef recall in U.S. history and animal cruelty
convictions as a direct result of an undercover exposé. If someone was there
saying “Sick and injured cows are going into the human food supply” but they
weren't able to document their claims, that recall and those convictions
would have never happened.

And that's essentially what agribusiness wants: to operate in secrecy
without any public scrutiny or regulation. Factory farmers want to create a
one-way communication system in which they can promote their sanitized,
glamorized, propagandized view of farming without any alternative views
contradicting it. The problem is that lack of transparency leads to abuse of
power, and makes it impossible for consumers to make informed decisions
about what they buy and eat.

Critics also accuse animal protection groups of not really caring about
animals because investigators who witness animal cruelty may wait several
weeks before reporting it to law enforcement. How would you respond to that
charge?

Each case is different, and there are instances in which there are
technically no legal violations: that is, the cruelty is just standard
industry procedure and therefore exempt from animal welfare laws, so there's
no one to report it to. Often the owners and managers are engaged in the
abuse, so there's no one in the workplace to report animal welfare
violations to. When we document violations, we do bring our evidence to law
enforcement as quickly as possible. But the industry's abuse is
long-standing: it goes on year after year in these places, and it would
continue unchallenged if our investigators didn't expose it.

It's really the obligation of these companies to monitor their operations,
but our investigations show they're not doing that. For example, at Willet
Dairy we filmed an employee bragging about abusing animals, and management
acknowledged that they knew about this ongoing abuse. This employee worked
there for 19 years, but it was only after our exposé that they fired him and
he was charged with animal cruelty. So who was actually turning a blind eye
to criminal behavior: the investigator who'd been there a few weeks, or the
company that employed this guy for almost two decades?

When we wrap up these investigations, we have experts and veterinarians
analyze the footage to determine whether laws have been broken. We try to
present the strongest possible evidence so that we can have the company held
criminally accountable for what's going on there. Making a case for
prosecution requires a long-term investigation that establishes an ongoing
pattern of abuse rather than just a single instance of cruelty.

It seems like most of the groups doing undercover investigations would be
strategically categorized as pragmatic animal advocates rather than strict
abolitionists. Is there a connection?

I think so, because whenever we do an investigation, we look at how we can
help the greatest number of animals possible. On the other hand, we also
strongly encourage people to completely remove their financial support from
the animal agriculture industry by going vegan. But there are enormous
opportunities with these exposés to make real-world changes through the
introduction of legislation, criminal prosecution, and removing the worst
abusers from these facilities. All of these tactics reduce animal suffering
to some degree, and we have an obligation to push for these outcomes in
every single investigation we do. They also generate discussion and focus
attention on the cruelty and exploitation that farm animals are subjected
to, which elevates people's awareness of this issue and motivates more
consumers to explore veganism as a compassionate alternative.

Economically speaking, is one motivation behind these bills to attract
agribusiness to these states? That is, wouldn't factory farms be enticed to
move their operations there because they'd be legally protected from
unwanted exposure?

Iowa is already an attractive state for factory farmers because it doesn't
have a ballot initiative process, and if they can shield producers from
public scrutiny by banning undercover exposés of animal cruelty, obviously
that's going to elevate agribusiness' interest in doing business there. Yet
all of these factory farmers using cruel methods are out of step with how
most Americans want animals to be treated, and I think this disdainful
attitude is going to hurt producers financially in the long run.

Another claim is that investigators get these jobs under false pretenses,
and that this is somehow illicit and dangerous. What's your response to
that?

We have certainly never been prosecuted or pursued for that. Our
investigators provide their real names and social security numbers, and
apply for jobs at these facilities just the same way anyone else would.
There are also existing laws to prevent fraudulently applying for
employment. Agribusiness is trying to sell these bills under a larger
umbrella of issues that are already covered by other laws for the sole
purpose of trying to make them seem legitimate. I mean, they can't just come
right out and say they want to prohibit people from taking and distributing
undercover videos of farm animals because they're bad for business: they
have to invent false claims to make these bills appear reasonable and
necessary.

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was the first, and remains the only,
federal law that protects a particular industry, specifically agribusiness,
and provides harsher penalties for people who hold particular beliefs,
specifically in animal rights. Are these proposed bans an extension of this
type of discriminatory law?

Yes, on the state level, at least. Outlawing investigations could easily be
applied to, say, someone who works in a nursing home, daycare center or
hospital secretly videotaping incidents of abuse. If these bans on
undercover exposés are legitimate, why then do they apply only to animal
enterprises? Obviously, we don't want anyone to be restricted from exposing
abuse, whether the victims are humans or animals. But the fact that these
bans would apply only to animal enterprises makes them discriminatory and
unconstitutional.

Fair Use Notice: This document, and others on our web site, may contain copyrighted
material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners.
We believe that this not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use
of the copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use,
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.